Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 6:39 pmPosts: 4830Location: A blue City in a red State

Well, DC Comics' Batman got a reboot of sorts when Christopher Nolan took the helm as director, with outstanding results. Spider-Man, being one of Marvel's flagship characters, could benefit from a similarly well-executed makeover given how inferior the third movie was to the previous two. OTOH, it could be as disastrous as what happened with the old Batman movies when the torch passed from Tim Burton to Joel Schumacher.*cringes*

"You can learn all the math in the 'verse, but take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turn of the worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she ought to fall down. Tells you she's hurting before she keens. Makes her a home."

I'm definitely disappointed. Big corporations win again. Usually, the case is that the director as an individual who is getting a secured paycheck and probably a bonus will have a much better perspective to make a product creatively than the big corporation that hired him, which as a single entity looks out only for the money. I had really enjoyed Tobey Macguire as Spider-Man and the first Spider-Man movie (3 was meh, but still good).

I'm happy to hear this, not so much Raimi being gone but the cast getting the boot. Maguire and Dunst are beyond terrible (in every movie theyre in I should note) and they made both their characters completely unbearable. I know Peter Parker is supposed to have his problems, but he's not the whiney sissy that Maguire portrayed him to be.

While I agree it could end up worse, given the poor acting by the main cast and the convoluted mess that was the third movie, I dont see it happening.

dont really like a re-boot so soon. i would much rather them wait a longer before doing so or make it a loose continuation of the other 3 with just a few passing references to them. kinda lie Superman Returns.

_________________Listen, not a year goes by, not a year, that I don't hear about some escalator accident involving some bastard kid which could have easily been avoided had some parent - I don't care which one - but some parent conditioned him to fear and respect that escalator.

Not sure if this is going to work out so well. The situation isn't like Batman Begins at all. There eight years had passed since Batman and Robin so most people didn't have much memory of Batman on the big screen and many had never seen the old movies at all. It will have been half that time since Spiderman 3. It was also 15 years since the first Batman, which meant that you could easily tell the origin story again. If they try the origin story in the reboot of Spiderman it seems like it'd just be a boring rehash, especially since I don't see how you really shake up Spiderman's origin. Radioactive/Mutated spider bite = super powers, then Uncle Ben dies and "with great power comes great responsibility."

More importantly though, Batman and Robin was absolutely horrendous. Spiderman 3 was not so good for a variety of reasons, but it was a watchable movie, and certainly not something that made people lose all hope in the franchise. And people liked the first two movies, which the new movie will be compared to while perhaps most of the audience of Batman Begins had never seen Batman or Batman Returns.

I haven't seen Spider-Man 2 and 3 since I watched them in theaters, so this reboot could actually be a good thing. Those two movies had zero replay value for me.

Also, Hulk got rebooted in a span of 5 years, and it's not like the 2003 version is Batman and Robin bad either. Actually does that even count as a reboot? Well, whatever. The 2008 movie was miles better.

Though quality aside, isn't it a little too early for a reboot? I mean Batman Begins really needed that ten year gap between it and Batman and Robin. But Spiderman 3 seems a little too recent in memory to redo the franchise.

Of course they could also take advantage of this and give Spiderman a giant robot again.

or it could be that Sony needs to make another movie before the licensing rights go back to marvel. kinda like that unreleased Fantastic Four film.

so lost the director and the star so they figure why not just start fresh.

_________________Listen, not a year goes by, not a year, that I don't hear about some escalator accident involving some bastard kid which could have easily been avoided had some parent - I don't care which one - but some parent conditioned him to fear and respect that escalator.

I'll tell you what's really going on. Disney got a hold of Marvel, so now they want to make the Spider-Man movies more relatable to the cartoon currently running on Disney DX. Surprisingly, the cartoon's plot is much closer to the comic series than the movies were. I think the series only lacks in writing because it is geared towards children. A Big screen production in live action will be more geared towards a broader audience, so the writing will be a bit more complicated and there will be violence at a level worthy of the Marvel name.

My opinion of the movies dropped dramatically as the stories went on. The first one was good, Willam Dufoe was great as Green Goblin, Tobey was OK as Peter, but that was it. The cast wasn't very well picked. The plot for the first movie was decent, MJ shouldn't have been in it though... Doc Oc's plot was aweful, and seriously, the third movie was the worst thing I had seen in theaters in a decade. Venom was decent although he was too short lived in a movie that ran as long as it did. Topher made a surprisingly good Venom, although he wasn't "Jocky" enough, I guess. I think Topher could make an AWESOME Peter Parker though!

it has nothing to do with Disney owning marvel since Sony has all the rights to Spider-Man films. Disney or Marvel have no say in what Sony does with the franchise

_________________Listen, not a year goes by, not a year, that I don't hear about some escalator accident involving some bastard kid which could have easily been avoided had some parent - I don't care which one - but some parent conditioned him to fear and respect that escalator.

I think you have misunderstood the term franchise. It's essentially a business idea or theme that is on loan from it's owner... If the owner wants to change it; it is changed. Ever work fast food?

Marvel owns the rights to Spider-Man, Sony wants to make money off of Spider-Man. Marvel (i.e. Disney) loans Spider-Man to Sony for a percentage of profits, under stipulations that honor the owner's interests. We will see what happens. I trust Sony to do a good job. I trust Disney and Marvel to do a good job. It's directors, actors, and writers that I will be worried about... Until all of those are announced and cleared, I withhold speculation on whether this will be a good new set of movies or not.

no that not what happened here. you have a misunderstanding of how film rights or other media rights work. Marvel SOLD the movie rights to Sony. as long as Sony has a film in production every so many years they will retain those rights(there may be a cut off date but i have not read of any). Sony can do what ever it wants with the characters and Marvel cant do anything about it. Marvel has no control over what goes on in the Spider-Man films past or future. They are completely separate property.

Disney is rather mad at this deal and has stated that it will consider trying to regain the rights of all its Marvel properties back if it is feasible.

_________________Listen, not a year goes by, not a year, that I don't hear about some escalator accident involving some bastard kid which could have easily been avoided had some parent - I don't care which one - but some parent conditioned him to fear and respect that escalator.

Well I think the reason that it got scrapped is because the recent move from marvel to disney.

I don't know if it's such a good idea to produce a super-villian movie. I mean they've had their share of action movies, but you know for sure that they will have to put a limit on how far violence and everything will have to be. I might be wrong about it and they still deliver the goods but I'm just stating my opinion that's all.

_________________"Sticks and stones are hard on bones,aimed with angry artwords can sting like anything,but silence breaks the heart..." -Phyllis mcgenlee

Well I think the reason that it got scrapped is because the recent move from marvel to disney.

I don't know if it's such a good idea to produce a super-villian movie. I mean they've had their share of action movies, but you know for sure that they will have to put a limit on how far violence and everything will have to be. I might be wrong about it and they still deliver the goods but I'm just stating my opinion that's all.

Disney has no say in anything about Spider-Man films. Sony has all film rights to Spider-Man and can do what every they like. Marvel sold the film right long before Disney acquired Marvel. the re-boot has nothing to do with Marvel.

_________________Listen, not a year goes by, not a year, that I don't hear about some escalator accident involving some bastard kid which could have easily been avoided had some parent - I don't care which one - but some parent conditioned him to fear and respect that escalator.

I don't really see why Spider-man needs a reboot. Granted, the third film wasn't as good as the first two, but I wouldn't say it was as bad as Batman and Robin. It seems pretty wasteful to retell the origin story so quickly after the original film back in 2002. It doesn't seem like the reboot could change anything since the first film covered all the basics of Spidey's origin. It worked for Batman Begins since in the 1989 film, they didn't really go into how Bruce Wayne became Batman, but I don't see how they could make anything different for the reboot except having a different villain than the Green Goblin.

It is sad to see Sam Raimi go since I thought he did a good job with the first two films, but the third one had a bit too much of his campy and over the top scenes, so maybe it is time for a new director. I'm fine with Tobey Maguire leaving since I never was a big fan of his Spider-man. I thought he did good, but I wouldn't say that it was like Peter Parker walked right out the comic, like Christopher Reeve in Superman: The Movie.

Quote:

Of course they could also take advantage of this and give Spiderman a giant robot again.

As silly as that sounds, I still don't see why Fox doesn't just get a new director, cast, and story for the 4th film instead of pushing the reset button. Couldn't they just go the James Bond route and get a new crew for the next film?

I'll tell you what we're going to get. We're going to get a movie made by sony, with a new director that's willing to fall right in line with what they think will garner the most money with a mainstream audience, not what would make the best spidey movie.

Not gonna sit and whine about it, as that's the way the world often works and I'm used to it at this point.

And say what you will about the casting of the protagonists, but dafoe, molina, and church were awesome in their roles. And the clocktower/train fight from spider-man 2, is my favorite fight scene of all time.

I've been reading spider-man a long time, and raimi captured the feel of the book, and everything that makes the character great, quite perfectly in his films, imo. Obviously 3 was a bit of a mess, but that had more to do with sony forcing venom into the movie, when he should have been the main villain of 4.

Regardless, I will give this new film a chance, but I don't expect it to top the raimi run.